AMD Ryzen 5 8400F vs Intel Core 5 315 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a decisive overall advantage for the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F, which wins 14 of the 17 shared tests, while the Intel Core 5 315 takes 3. The largest margin appears in PassMark integer math, where the AMD part scores 74021 against 31690, a 133.6% advantage. This result reflects the fundamental throughput gap between the two processors in heavily threaded integer workloads.

Cinebench results are consistent across all three versions of the test. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F records 20851 points versus 12981 for the Intel Core 5 315, a 60.6% lead. The single-core R23 result follows the same pattern: 2943 for AMD against 1832 for Intel, again a 60.6% difference. The R20 and R15 variants show nearly identical margins, with multicore deltas of 60.6% in both cases and single-core deltas of 60.7% and 60.9% respectively. This consistency across Cinebench generations indicates that the performance gap is stable regardless of workload scaling within this rendering benchmark.

PassMark compression and sorting tests show the most extreme disparity. Data compression scores 288158 for the AMD processor versus 146143 for Intel, a 97.2% lead. Random string sorting also lands at a 97.2% delta, with 34604 against 17551. Data encryption favors AMD by 49.7%, recording 16646 versus 11119. Extended instructions show a 68.7% advantage for AMD, with 22175 against 13143.

The AMD processor also wins multithread tests, scoring 24389 versus 15272, a 59.7% margin. Floating point math is closer, with AMD at 46217 and Intel at 42441, an 8.9% difference. Physics simulation favors AMD by 14.5%, with 1332 versus 1163.

The Intel Core 5 315 claims its wins in three specific areas. PassMark single-thread performance shows Intel at 4021 versus 3685 for AMD, an 8.4% advantage. Prime number finding favors Intel by 20.5%, with scores of 112 versus 89. These wins indicate that Intel's architecture holds an edge in certain latency-sensitive single-thread tasks, even though it trails heavily in aggregate throughput.

The average benchmark score places the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F at 25005, while the Intel Core 5 315 averages 18188. The AMD processor sits at the 77th percentile among all CPUs in the database, and the Intel part sits at the 72nd percentile. The nearest rivals for AMD include the AMD Ryzen 5 7500F with an average score of 24964, a 0.2% delta, and the Intel Core i7-13620H at 24911, a 0.4% delta. The Intel Core 5 315 sits essentially level with the AMD EPYC 9274F, which scores 18189, a 0% delta, and the Intel Core i7-9700 at 18180, also a 0% delta.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from completely different design lineages. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F uses the Zen 4 architecture under the Phoenix codename, built on a 4 nm process at TSMC. The Intel Core 5 315 uses the Wildcat Lake codename, fabricated on Intel's 3 nm process. Both are active production parts, but they target different segments: AMD lists the 8400F as a desktop processor, while Intel lists the 315 as a mobile processor.

Core counts are identical at 6 physical cores, but threading differs substantially. The AMD part supports 12 threads through simultaneous multithreading, while the Intel part runs 6 threads with no hyperthreading. This explains much of the multicore performance disparity. The AMD processor has a base clock of 4.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Intel processor has a base clock of 1.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The base clock difference is massive, though boost clocks are closer.

Cache hierarchies diverge in structure. The AMD processor uses 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. The Intel processor lists 192 KB of L1 total, 2.5 MB of L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The AMD part also has a larger die at 178 mm² with 25,000 million transistors. Intel does not report transistor count or die size for the 315.

Memory support differs in both type and channel configuration. AMD supports DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 83.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Intel supports both DDR5 and LPDDR5X but in a single-channel configuration with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. Neither processor supports ECC memory. PCIe connectivity also differs: AMD provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while Intel provides Gen 4 with 6 lanes.

The Intel part includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no integrated graphics, which explains the F suffix in its name. The AMD processor has an unlocked multiplier, while the Intel processor does not.

Where Each One Wins

The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F dominates in almost every measured category, with the largest advantages in integer-heavy and compression workloads. The 133.6% lead in integer math and the 97.2% leads in both data compression and random string sorting indicate that the AMD processor is far better suited to data processing, database operations, and general productivity tasks that scale with thread count. The 59.7% multithread advantage and the 60.6% Cinebench R23 multicore margin reinforce this positioning for rendering and content creation.

The 49.7% encryption advantage and the 68.7% extended instructions advantage suggest that the AMD processor handles cryptographic workloads and SIMD-heavy code more efficiently. The 8.9% floating point lead and the 14.5% physics lead are more modest but still favor AMD. In every Cinebench test, single-core and multicore, the AMD processor leads by approximately 60%, which means the gap is not just about thread count but also about per-thread efficiency in these rendering workloads.

The Intel Core 5 315 wins only in single-thread PassMark tests, prime number finding, and nothing else. The 8.4% PassMark single-thread advantage is notable because it shows that Intel's core design, despite the low 1.50 GHz base clock, can reach higher peak performance on lightly threaded tasks when boost clocks are engaged. The 20.5% prime number finding advantage is a more specialized result, indicating strength in workloads with small working sets and branch-heavy loops.

For a user running highly parallel workloads, the AMD processor is clearly the stronger choice. The data shows that the AMD part leads by at least 49.7% in every multithreaded benchmark category and by 60.6% or more in every Cinebench test. The Intel part's wins are confined to narrow single-thread scenarios. The AMD processor also holds a higher percentile ranking across all CPUs in the database, at 77 versus 72.

Specification Differences

The most relevant specification differences between the two processors are listed below, restricted to fields where the two parts diverge.

| Specification | AMD Ryzen 5 8400F | Intel Core 5 315 |

|---|---|---|

| Manufacturer | AMD | Intel |

| Threads | 12 | 6 |

| Base clock | 4.20 GHz | 1.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.70 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 15 W |

| Socket | AMD Socket AM5 | Intel BGA 1516 |

| Architecture | Zen 4 | Not listed |

| Codename | Phoenix | Wildcat Lake |

| Process node | 4 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | TSMC | Intel |

| Transistors | 25,000 million | Not listed |

| Die size | 178 mm² | Not listed |

| L1 cache | 64 KB per core | 192 KB total |

| L2 cache | 1 MB per core | 2.5 MB total |

| L3 cache | 16 MB shared | 6 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR5 | DDR5, LPDDR5X |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 83.2 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 lanes | Gen 4, 6 lanes |

| Integrated graphics | N/A | Intel Xe3 Graphics (2 Xe) |

| Market segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release date | 2024-03-31 | 2026-04-15 |

| Launch MSRP | $170 | $340 |

| Multiplier unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part number | 100-000001591 | SAEFC |

The TDP difference is significant: 65 W for AMD versus 15 W for Intel. This reflects the desktop versus mobile positioning. The AMD part uses a socketed AM5 platform, while the Intel part is BGA 1516, which is typically soldered to a motherboard. The AMD processor offers 20 PCIe lanes versus 6 for Intel, and it supports dual-channel memory versus single-channel. The Intel part includes integrated graphics, which the AMD part lacks. The AMD processor has an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, while the Intel processor is locked.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has an average benchmark score of 25005, compared to 18188 for the Intel Core 5 315.

Q: How large is the advantage in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F scores 20851 in Cinebench R23 multicore, while the Intel Core 5 315 scores 12981, a 60.6% advantage for AMD.

Q: Does the Intel Core 5 315 win any benchmark tests?

A: Yes, the Intel Core 5 315 wins 3 of the 17 shared tests: PassMark single-thread (4021 versus 3685, an 8.4% advantage), PassMark singlethread (same scores), and PassMark find prime numbers (112 versus 89, a 20.5% advantage).

Q: What memory configurations do the two processors support?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F supports DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration with 83.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core 5 315 supports DDR5 and LPDDR5X in a single-channel configuration with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do either of these processors support ECC memory?

A: No, both the AMD Ryzen 5 8400F and the Intel Core 5 315 list ECC memory support as false.

Q: What is the thread count for each processor?

A: The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Core 5 315 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core 5 315 includes Intel Xe3 Graphics with 2 Xe cores. The AMD Ryzen 5 8400F has no integrated graphics.